JSF - should we or shouldn't we?

[Stevieboy]

Anyone got any specs on U/C differences between RAF Phantom and RN Phantom ?

Phantom had a long snout but admitedly no cannards. Also had foldy wings, not sure that Tiffie would need those as seemingly slimmer.

High Alpha approach .. then levelling out to land on deck without arrestor gear.

The RN Phantom (the FG1 or F4K) had nose gear with extra extention to give the aircraft a higher angle of attack on launch from our baby carrier. Other than that I think that the undercarriage was same spec as RAF (FGR2 or F4M). I guess that the FG1s retained this facility when the transfered accross to the Dark Side. I expect the experts can confirm this.



Edit. A bit more:

Double extention of the nose gear for the catapult launch to ensure correct launch attitude. The nose undercarriage leg was extended 40 inches, and shrunk under normal circumstances, using hydraulic pressure. Pneumatics were involved with the Emergency Shrink in the event of failure in the hydraulic system.

Rapid Reheat. Fitted for immediate engine response in the event of a bolter (missed approach) from the deck. Rapid reheat was selected only on approach to the deck. This was absolutely vital in the unlikely event of a single engine approach. Normal use would have excess wear and tear on the engine and it was therefore not authorised.

Stick Positioning Device. (SPD). A very simple device that consisted of a wire on a small clutched reel under the instrument panel. The Weight and Balance would be known for that configuration on that day and therefore the required tail plane angle. The pilot would connect the wire by a clip to the control column. and pull back to the required setting, visually checked by the crew chief. The control column would be released and the SPD would remain connected with some slack wire in front. When sitting on the catapult, the stick would be pulled back to a position where the wire was taught. With the pilots right elbow locked in his right hip and the combination of the clutch on the SPD, the Phantom would launch gracefully into flight after the catapult fired, without the tailplane moving.

[Bubbles]

I'd be surprised if there were ANY differences between the two Pudgeyknees - the Phantom was originally designed for the USN after all, so the carrier aspect would've been included from day one. any that were used for land-based duties would surely have had the same u/c - i mean why DOWNGRADE it for use on land?

Buccaneer would probably have been the same to i imagine

as for the folding wings - well the Harrier doesn't have them and its wingspan (30' 4") is only about 5' less than Typhoon's 35' 11". compare that to Buccaneer's 44' wingspan, or an F/A-18 Hornet's at 40'

I'm really not convinced that 'Navoon' would need folding wings at all

sm

The Buccaneer was designed from the start as a navel aircraft, its whole airframe and undercarriege were built to withstand the punishment deck landings would inflict on it, and that 44ft wingspan is considerably less when folded. One of the reasons it was so succesfull as a low level R.A.F. plane was because it was meant to be bashed about on ships etc, the dont call it the Brick for nowt you know.

This pic shows how compact(ish) they can be and just how solid the undercarriege is (and is also a good excuse to post one of the worlds greatest aircraft)

[Saracenman]

agreed Bubbs - one of our finest a/c ever in my opinion!

the compactness was even better with its nose folded to the side, and with the 'clam-shell' airbrake at the rear fully open - that's how Blackburn were able to keep Buccaneer within the stringent dimension limits imposed by Whitehall

what you've said about the robust u/c was the reason i mentioned Buccaneer in relation to Pudgeyknees question about RAF vs RN Phantoms - the fact that both Phantom and Buccaneer were designed as naval a/c from the start meant that their u/c was robust from the very first stroke of the draughtsman's pencil

sm

[Pujgnie]

Thanks guys. Comprehensive explanations and answers to my query